Saturday, December 8, 2007

Ritchie Painted Big


Matthew Ritchie was born in London in 1964, but he has lived in New York for much of his adult life and has been very active in the art scene there. He attended the Camberwell School of Art in London, and then Boston University. He is often categorized as a painter, but Ritchie also makes light-box drawings, floor-to-wall installations, freestanding sculpture, web sites, and short stories. Drawing is central to his work. He scans his drawings into the computer, and then he blows them up, takes them apart, changes their size and shape, or turns them into digital games. Since his drawings are transformed into digital images, they can also be shared and executed by others.

Through his art, Ritchie works to describe the universe’s formation and the “attempts and limits of human consciousness to comprehend its vastness.” Much of his work is expressive of information (as subject), and in particular he deals with the idea of information existing on the surface of things. When asked what his work is ultimately about, Ritchie has replied simply, “life is as complicated as it appears.”

I think his work clearly expresses the overwhelming, sublime, complicatedness of the world. The way he works with many layers and clusters of forms that all seem different, but interweave to create a cohesive entity, is descriptive of this notion. His style has an explosive quality to it, and I think of Ritchie’s work as being at the forefront of a growing contemporary aesthetic.

LINKS:

Matthew Ritchie on ART 21:

http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/ritchie/index.html

“The Hard Way”:

http://www.adaweb.com/influx/hardway/

“Proposition: Player”:

http://newplace.projects.sfmoma.org/mockUp1204/

3 comments:

Mary M. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary M. said...

I've watched the Art 21 on Ritchie a number of times for a couple of different classes, and while I find his works very visually intriguing, it is ironic how he chooses to describe them. He uses these ambiguous lines that hint at forms, making us think we recognize something familiar or identifiable, when really it is just a fluctuation of the line. I feel that Ritchie is really all over the map when he discusses his works, and they are constructed in such a way that they can fit almost whatever theme or philosophy he wants. His work seems unfocused and impersonal--but maybe I just don't know enough about it. Or maybe it is designed to be subjective to each person, since he does a lot with interactive games.

Mary M. said...

I've watched the Art 21 on Ritchie a number of times for a couple of different classes, and while I find his works very visually intriguing, it is ironic how he chooses to describe them. He uses these ambiguous lines that hint at forms, making us think we recognize something familiar or identifiable, when really it is just a fluctuation of the line. I feel that Ritchie is really all over the map when he discusses his works, and they are constructed in such a way that they can fit almost whatever theme or philosophy he wants. His work seems unfocused and impersonal--but maybe I just don't know enough about it. Or maybe it is designed to be subjective to each person, since he does a lot with interactive games.